# C_2019305EN.01006101.xml

| 9.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/61

---

Action brought on 8 July 2019 — CV and Others v Commission

(Case T-496/19)

(2019/C 305/71)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: CV, CW and CY (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision rejecting their request of 4 June 2018; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision rejecting their request of 4 June 2018;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action seeking the annulment of the Commission’s decision rejecting their request for the adoption of measures such as to end the infringement of the principle of equivalence in purchasing power between officials and other members of staff, irrespective of the place of their posting, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and of the principle of equivalence in purchasing power between officials, irrespective of their place of posting. In the first place, the applicants submit that the contested decision is vitiated by a failure to state any reasons for it, which prevents them from understanding the justification for that decision and does not allow the General Court to exercise its judicial review. In the second place, the applicants take the view that they carry out their duties under the same conditions as their colleagues posted at the European Commission Representation in Paris and that they should therefore receive, like those colleagues, a fixed entertainment allowance. Lastly, they take the view that observance of the principle of equivalence in purchasing power is incompatible with the existence of the same weighting for officials posted in Paris, Strasbourg, Marseille and Valenciennes. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and of the principle of equivalence in purchasing power between officials, irrespective of their place of posting. In the first place, the applicants submit that the contested decision is vitiated by a failure to state any reasons for it, which prevents them from understanding the justification for that decision and does not allow the General Court to exercise its judicial review. In the second place, the applicants take the view that they carry out their duties under the same conditions as their colleagues posted at the European Commission Representation in Paris and that they should therefore receive, like those colleagues, a fixed entertainment allowance. Lastly, they take the view that observance of the principle of equivalence in purchasing power is incompatible with the existence of the same weighting for officials posted in Paris, Strasbourg, Marseille and Valenciennes.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment and of non-discrimination, inasmuch as the applicants, unlike their colleagues posted at the European Commission Representation in Paris, do not receive the fixed entertainment allowance, although they carry out their duties under the same conditions as those colleagues. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment and of non-discrimination, inasmuch as the applicants, unlike their colleagues posted at the European Commission Representation in Paris, do not receive the fixed entertainment allowance, although they carry out their duties under the same conditions as those colleagues.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty of care, which requires the competent authority to state, in the grounds given for the contested decision, the reasons which led it to find that the interest of the service prevailed. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty of care, which requires the competent authority to state, in the grounds given for the contested decision, the reasons which led it to find that the interest of the service prevailed.

---